KGM v. Meta & Google/YouTube

About this collection

The case of KGM — identified in court documents as Kaley G.M., a young woman now approximately 20 years old — sits at the center of one of the most consequential legal battles in the history of social media. KGM alleges that Meta (owner of Instagram and Facebook) and Alphabet/Google (owner of YouTube) deliberately engineered their platforms to be addictive, specifically targeting children and teenagers, and that her compulsive use of these platforms beginning in early childhood caused her to develop depression, anxiety, body dysmorphia, suicidal thoughts, and other serious mental health harms. [1][2] KGM's case has been selected as a **bellwether trial** — one of three test cases drawn from a massive consolidated group of lawsuits known as **JCCP 5255**, representing thousands of plaintiffs across the United States. The outcome of her trial in Los Angeles Superior Court is expected to set legal and financial precedents that will shape how hundreds of similar cases proceed, potentially forcing tech giants to fundamentally redesign their platforms and exposing them to billions of dollars in liability. [3][2] The trial, which began with jury selection on January 27, 2026, and opening statements on February 9, 2026, is expected to last six to eight weeks. [4][1] KGM's lawsuit argues that the companies borrowed techniques from slot machines and the tobacco industry — using dopamine-manipulating algorithms, infinite scroll, autoplay, push notifications, and social comparison features like "Likes" — to maximize youth engagement and advertising revenue, while knowingly concealing the mental health risks from the public. [1][3] The case exists within a broader national reckoning: more than 40 state attorneys general have filed related lawsuits against Meta, a parallel trial in New Mexico accuses Meta of enabling child sexual exploitation, and a federal bellwether trial representing school districts is scheduled for June 2026 in Oakland. [5][6]

Curated Sources

Frequently Asked Questions

• How does the plaintiffs' legal strategy of targeting platform design features rather than user-generated content specifically circumvent Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act — and what are the three possible outcomes if the jury accepts or rejects this distinction?
• What specific internal documents — including 'Project Myst,' the 2015 Zuckerberg time-spent email, and YouTube's 'slot machine' language — are the plaintiffs relying on to prove *intentionality*, and how does Meta's defense counter that these were taken out of context?
• How does the JCCP 5255 bellwether structure work mechanically: if KGM wins, does that verdict bind the other 3,000+ plaintiffs, or does it only influence settlement negotiations and subsequent trials?
• YouTube's attorney Luis Li argued that KGM's five-year average watch time was only 29 minutes per day and that she herself denied being addicted to YouTube under oath — how does Dr. Anna Lembke's addiction medicine testimony counter these specific data points?
• The Australian Human Rights Commission raised 'serious reservations' about the under-16 social media ban, citing rights to freedom of expression, education, and privacy — how do these human rights objections compare to the legal arguments being made in the U.S. litigation about First Amendment protections for platform design?
• The Digital Wellness Lab's Pulse Survey found that 79.4% of teens feel 'connected' and 69% feel 'supported' through social media, while the LGBTQ youth systematic review found net positive mental health outcomes for marginalized youth — how do these findings interact with the Surgeon General's advisory warning that over 3 hours of daily use doubles depression and anxiety risk?
• Meta's 'Project Mercury' study (referenced in the Washington Post article) reportedly found that users who stopped using Facebook for a month reported lower depression and anxiety — but Meta halted the research, claiming results were biased. How does this internal study compare to the external academic literature cited by defendants that shows only correlation, not causation, between social media use and mental health outcomes?
• How do the three parallel litigation tracks — the KGM personal injury bellwether in LA Superior Court, the New Mexico AG trial focused on child sexual exploitation, and the upcoming Oakland federal trial representing school districts arguing public nuisance — differ in their legal theories, remedies sought, and potential precedential impact?
• Utah's H.B. 311 explicitly prohibits social media companies from 'using a design or feature that causes a minor to have an addiction' — how does this statutory language compare to the legal standard the KGM plaintiffs must meet in tort law to prove defective product design, and which standard is harder to satisfy?
• Given that Snap and TikTok both settled before trial for undisclosed sums, what strategic calculus explains why Meta and YouTube chose to go to trial rather than settle — and how might the outcome of the KGM bellwether affect their decision-making for the remaining 3,000+ cases?